three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn’t established in your article for a certainty, and at best i’d say it’s debatable. i don’t care to debate about it. it’s clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.
What about feeding vegans to pets, or pets to vegans?
You can’t feed pets to vegans. As soon as they eat it, the pet stops being a pet and the vegan stops being a vegan.
“You can’t have your vegan and eat it, too.”
What if you feed vegans to vegans? I mean, if you take 'you are what you eat literally…
It would be vegan if the person being eaten consents.
veganism eschews all exploitation. there is no carve out for consent in the vegan society’s definition
It’s implicit. If consent was given, it wouldn’t be exploitative. (And obviously, that’s contingent upon non-coersion.)
common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.
What? Where are you looking, the dictionary?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
Consent is mentioned plenty.
encyclopedias are not dictionaries
three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn’t established in your article for a certainty, and at best i’d say it’s debatable. i don’t care to debate about it. it’s clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.
What about feeding pets to pets or vegans to vegans??